New iPad resolution gripe - Page 2

^^^

if you stop and think for a minute, you'll realize why many of us who say "1080p is enough" for displays that you watch from several feet away are also excited about the higher resolution on a device that you hold in your hands...

this isn't that hard to understand...

This is the first mainstream computing device with a high resolution display (density is what matters, not numbers) and Apple is making it happen at $500.

If it weren't for Apple pushing things forward with the retina display on the iPhone, now the iPad, and Mac displays in the future, at relatively low prices, we'd still be stuck with low resolution displays until 4K takes off. (still years away from being mainstream)


No, the iPad screen is 264 PPI at 9.7″, which is a print-quality display. The Kindle display uses e-ink which is paper-like, but only 167 PPI (600×800 at 6″) and worse than the quality of a cheap paperback. (it needs a lot of light, the “page” is rather dark)

What makes the Kindle good is that it's cheap, and works well in sunlight.


30″ PC monitors are all 100 PPI. Anything else is sub-100 PPI. far below the quality of print, and they cost considerably more than the iPad does.

You can't compare e-ink and LCD PPI. e-ink has a much better sub-pixel geometry. It looks much smoother and more readable than a LCD display with same pixel density.

That's true, but the Kindle is still relatively low resolution. If you load up the same font as a book and view at the same size, it's nowhere close to comparable. The thing that makes the Kindle great is being able to read it in sunlight, and the lack of a pixel grid. Text will look better on the new iPad. The Kindle actually can't resolve the full resolution of the display because of the way it draws things.

The Kindle's "print quality" is better than a cheap paperback, for what it's worth. In theory, the cheap paperback was printed well, but that's really only in theory. The reality is that most trade paperbacks are vaguely grey on very grey newsprint and have awful contrast. Kindle is very contrasty and crisp, even at small font sizes.

Kindle can't touch a good hardcover, especially one on white paper (like some textbooks, many coffee-table-type books, et al.), but it's surprisingly good given the low resolution.

I'm fairly certain that wasn't meant to be directed at me, considering I clearly said "I never said 1080p was enough" and made it clear that the general consensus was that 1080p was rather useless under 40".

To be excited about an ultra-high resolution handheld display is one thing. Sure it may bring these higher resolutions to the masses, but it isn't innovative in the sense that people want it to be. But the entire Ipad experience will not be made that much better by having this higher resolution.

^^^

yes, it was directed at you... read closer...

we know... you don't like apple... so be it...

Ha. I don't know what I need to read closer. You tried to leave a condescending post directed at me, while obviously failing to comprehend what my previous posts were about.

I never said I didn't like Apple. Just because someone doesn't praise every single iteration of an Apple product, doesn't mean they dislike Apple. I think Apple makes great products for their demographic. Just so happens that their demographic is the largest demographic.

Suspect only for the initial phase/ ramp. Apple's roadmap is to diversify away from Sammy. Now it makes sense why TSMC didn't get the "A6 order"

March 14 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. will supply the screen for Apple Inc.'s new iPad after LG Display Co. and Sharp Corp. didn't meet the U.S. company's quality requirements, according to an analyst with iSuppli.

Samsung, the world's top flat-panel maker, currently is the sole vendor of the display for the 9.7-inch, touch-screen device, said Vinita Jakhanwal, a senior manager at iSuppli, a unit of Englewood, Colorado-based IHS Inc. The new tablet goes on sale March 16.

The supply deal deepens Apple's partnership with Samsung, which already makes the chips that power the iPhone and iPad, even as the companies sue each other around the world regarding patents. Apple unveiled a new version of the iPad last week that features a sharper display and faster processor to fend off growing competition from products including Samsung's Galaxy Tab.

Steve Park, a Seoul-based spokesman for Apple; Jason Kim, a Seoul-based spokesman for Samsung; Claire Ohm, a Seoul-based spokeswoman for LG Display; and Miyuki Nakayama, a spokeswoman for Osaka, Japan-based Sharp, declined to comment.

"The display specifications on the new iPad are very demanding in terms of the very high resolution," Jakhanwal said in an e-mail. "Achieving this high resolution without compromising on the power consumption and brightness and maintaining Apple's quality standards are supposedly proving to be a challenge for LG Display and Sharp."

If you believe the rumors, the new display brings a big increase in power consumption. Sharp failed to deliver the IGZO displays on time so Apple is using a-si from Samsung and the decreased aperture ratio requires many more LED's in the backlight.

If/when Sharp does deliver the IGZO "retina" displays, we may see a big increase in battery life....at least, I hope Apple does that rather than reducing the battery to make it a bit thinner.

Anybody know how increased resolution in OLED's impacts power consumption?

Good point Samsung is using a-si and the battery should be bigger (due also to more LED) which may be the reason why the new iPad is slightly thicker

Well actually, it is (hard to understand) for me. Either example (tv vs ipad) should be quite linear, actually.

A 4:3, 10" '1080' display (which the orig ipad was not) for instance is fully resolved at 14 inches for someone with 20/20 vision (a 1080 16:9 40" set would have to be viewed at 5' or closer to fully resolve). Who the hell uses an ipad or watches television any closer than that (14 inches and 5 feet, respectively)?

I have an iphone 4S and I'd be lying if I told you I thought the images on it look sharper on it 99% of the time over my 3G.

Upon close/closer inspection, absolutely. But from the 15-18" I typically use my phone, no way.

That's why the pic with the icons earlier in the thread is all-but worthless. No one will ever view either even remotely the way those pics are presented.


I never argued that the ipad couldn't use a bit of an uptick in rez, but while it hasn't reached iphone territory, we're still in full overkill mode. Which I realize many in these parts absolutely live for.

James

I'm no fan of Apple, but getting screen resolution in the mid-200 DPI range is a worthwhile improvement. I get 256 DPI on my htc Sensation Android, and reading books on it is a pleasure.

Supposedly the Apple has gone from a 7000mAH battery in the iPad2 to a 11,666 mAH battery in the iPad3. The battery life is basically the same so that gives a pretty good idea that the power consumption of the screen has gone up dramatically.

I like the trend towards bigger batteries (seen also in the RAZR MAXX). Thinness is nice, but I'll take the extra battery life...especially when you are only talking about adding another mm or so.

Personally, I'm disappointed that it's getting thicker, but the bigger problem with higher capacity batteries is weight.

The iPad 2 already weighs too much in my opinion, it's not very comfortable to hold for long lengths of time.

20 ounces is too heavy to hold?!



ok grandma.

get a touch.

James

The iPad's weight is a common complaint for anyone that tries to hold it one-handed for reading.

Don't see much difference in the ipad2 and ipad3 images exampled here. At the top of the screen the iphone info is where there was a detectible difference for me. I'm looking at it on a 1200 x 1920 LCD screen. I don't believe you can evaluate what a retina display looks like compared to a regular display on the ipad by posting screen captures of an iphone. It seems like that is like trying to compare an HDTV with an SDTV by looking at a recording made with a VHS camcorder displayed on an old CRT TV. Ok that was a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point. Basically, I don't think the images posted will convince a stubborn person that a higher resolution image offers higher resolution. Either they have vision problems that limit the clarity or they are just looking for an excuse to justify them not owning one.

I am excited to get an upgrade to the ipad3 from my ipad1 for the screen because I understand there IS an improvement and I expect to see a much better screen to do iphoto with my new NEX5n still camera. I also hope it has much better brightness and clarity in bright outdoor sunlight that my ipad1 doesn't have. But I am also looking forward to having LTE radio and a faster processor to use Logmein so I can run windows apps on my ipad. I do it now but the speed is one complaint, especially with 3G EVDO. All in all, I'm very pleased with the ipad1 and glad I waited for ipad 3 as the 2, did not offer all I was looking for. The 3 does. Can't wait for Friday!

yeah I don't doubt it, they say the population of those over 65 in this country will exceed 45 million by the end of this year.


James

At 100%, or scaled to fit? You must view the images at 100%, and I'd recommend opening them in separate browser tabs for comparison.


All images I posted were of the new iPad.

Are you really telling me that you don't see a massive difference between these?


I doubt it. It still doesn't have the screen bonded to the glass, even. (doesn't help brightness, but reduces reflections & glare)


The processor in the iPad 2 appears to be the same as the iPad 3, only the GPU was improved.

I must say I'm somewhat concerned when applications are pushing 4× the number of pixels, with only 2× the GPU power, and the same CPU as the previous model. (which is already quite slow for rendering complex web pages)


What is your problem?

The first thing anyone has ever said when they tried using my iPad for the first time was "I didn't expect it to be so heavy".

For what it's worth, I'm not even half that age yet. I do spend a lot of time in front of a computer though, and would like to still have full function of my wrists when I do reach that age though.

It's not like I have any trouble moving the iPad about, but holding something that weight at an angle in one hand for an extended period of time (say an hour or two reading a book) is doing bad things to your wrists.

"the first thing anyone has ever said" to you, heh? wow.

Well, I suppose if I (truthfully) retorted with how many who have picked up mine were amazed at how light it was (with some even commenting that it was too svelte) it would somehow have less merit than your (and others) anecdotal accounts?

I seriously, seriously, doubt that if the weight was a meaningful issue- for even a marginal number of users- apple wouldn't have found a way to at least slightly reduce it- if not offer a smaller model altogether.

But seeing you have as much hard evidence as I do I suppose it's best to let it lie there.

James

Isn't that exactly why there's been a large number of 6-8" tablets recently, with much demand for Apple to bring out a smaller device?

Clearly, I'm not the only person that thinks so: http://www.google.com/search?q=iPad+%22too+heavy%22 (over 2 million results)

Yeah, an "ipad too heavy" google search yielding "2 million results" definitely means the ipad needs a significant and immediate weight reduction and apple was beyond foolish in actually INCREASING its heft. Typical apple...they have no clue what humans really want. I would guarantee you that there's crap-tons would like to see a weight reduction...but of course there's much much more at play here, obviously.

lmao. You can't make this shtuff up.

The next one will weigh less than a snickers bar I'm sure.


And as an aside: do you imagine that cost, ease of use, and overall portability are GIGANTIC players in producing smaller tablets? I'd be willing to bet ALL THREE figure more into the decision.

James

Where did I say anything like that? I said that I find it too heavy for extended use, when doing things like reading a book, and that it was disappointing that the new model is heavier.

That's part of the reason I also own a Kindle in addition to the iPad, because it's a much better device for reading books on. (but useless for anything else)

It's not just about the weight of the device either. I had no problem reading off a MacBook Proa much heavier devicefor extended periods of time, because the weight is on your lap and you don't need to hold up the screen as you read.

If you have no problem reading books on an iPad for extended periods of time, then that's great, but it's a common complaint, and why there are a lot of people with Kindles in addition to iPads.

^ whatever helps you sleep at night.

James

response in bold-

Hehehe...iPad Novo or Nuevo iPad???

I pre-ordered my New iPad. Unfortunately, my wife who is the "gamer" using her "original" iPad is starting to ask questions about retina display and how the games would look on the new iPad.

She took over the new iPhone 4S and I wound up with her old iPhone. History is probably about to repeat in our household...after almost 55 yrs married, what the heck!

Chrono -It's not like I have any trouble moving the iPad about, but holding something that weight at an angle in one hand for an extended period of time (say an hour or two reading a book) is doing bad things to your wrists.>>>

Perhaps to YOUR wrists. My wife takes her iPad to bed and gets up with the iPad. When she's not playing games, she's reading books. She's been doing this since the original iPad first came out and so far, no complaints and she's 74 yrs old!

there are times where i wish it would be a bit lighter... i think that's true of pretty much everything...

i'll live with it though...

as far as viewing distance... dunno about anyone else, but i use mine every night to read/surf in bed from about 8 or so inches away... i'm looking forward to the new screen for that (although i'm gonna have to wait since i put off too long getting in on the pre-order )...

A banana's weight is 180g, 4 banana's= 720g . The weight of iPad1 is 710g. i guess folks get used to holding 4 banana's in one hand for long period of time ...

http://www.ifixyouri.com/blog/?p=647





Aha